The Supreme Court stated, “It is unnecessary to state that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the soul of the Constitution, as the liberty of a citizen is of paramount importance. Not deciding the matter pertaining to the liberty of a citizen expeditiously and shunting away the matter on one or the other ground would deprive the party of their precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.“.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently directed judges of the Bombay High Court to expedite the hearing and dispose of bail matters, highlighting that delays in such proceedings could result in the infringement of personal liberty.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 1 lac Costs on Frivolous Petitions: A Message to Lawyers
Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta expressed dismay over the High Court’s sluggishness in adjudicating such cases, citing instances where bail or anticipatory bail petitions linger without disposal. The apex court criticized the trend of finding excuses to delay the proceedings.
During the proceedings, Advocate Prashant Shrikant Kenjale represented the accused, while Advocates Aaditya Aniruddha Pande and Siddharth Dharmadhikari represented the Maharashtra government.
In response, the Supreme Court instructed Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya to urge all judges to prioritize the expeditious handling of bail cases. It emphasized the importance of immediate decisions on bail and anticipatory bail petitions.
“We have come across various matters from the High Court of Bombay where the bail/anticipatory bail applications are not being decided expeditiously … numerous matters wherein the learned Judges are not deciding the matter on merits but find an excuse to shunt the case on different grounds,” the apex court noted.
READ ALSO: Assam’s Repeal of Muslim Marriage Law Sparks Controversy and Debate
This call to action arose during a bail plea hearing on February 16. The Supreme Court recalled its previous directive on January 29, urging the High Court to promptly address the case instead of remanding it back to the trial court. Following this direction, the High Court granted bail to the petitioner on February 12.
“We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to convey our request to all the judges exercising the criminal jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to bail or anticipatatory bail as expeditiously as possible,” the apex court said.
The Supreme Court noted that prior to its January 29 directive, the High Court had delayed the bail application without substantive review. It highlighted the fundamental significance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which safeguards individual liberty. Delays in addressing matters related to personal liberty directly contradict this constitutional provision.
Furthermore, the bench emphasized that the High Court’s initial reluctance to engage with the case on its merits was unwarranted. The Court emphasized the paramount importance of promptly addressing matters concerning individual liberty.
“It is thus clear that before the aforesaid order was passed by this Court on January 29, 2024, the High Court, instead of deciding the application for bail on merits, shunted it on one or the other ground,” the Supreme Court noted on February 16.
READ ALSO: Investor Group Approaches NCLT Bengaluru Against Byju’s Alleging Mismanagement
Consequently, the Supreme Court not only called for the disposal of bail cases but also directed the Bombay Chief Court Chief Justice to receive a copy of its order for necessary action.
The bench said that the High Court had initially refused to hear the case on merit on frivolous grounds.
“Needless to state that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the soul of the Constitution as the liberty of a citizen is of paramount importance. Not deciding the matter pertaining to liberty of a citizen expeditiously and shunting away the matter on one or the other ground would deprive the party of their precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,”
the Supreme court explained.
Case Title: Amol Vitthal Vahile vs. State of Maharashtra.
[Click here to Read the order.]
